Re: [ipfix-eval] draft-leinen-ipfix-eval-contrib-00.txt
calato@riverstonenet.com Mon, 28 October 2002 16:29 UTC
Received: from mil.doit.wisc.edu (mil.doit.wisc.edu [128.104.31.31]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17377 for <ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:29:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by mil.doit.wisc.edu with local (Exim 3.13 #1) id 186Cf6-0000bo-00 for ipfix-list@mil.doit.wisc.edu; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:22:44 -0600
Received: from [64.95.122.60] (helo=RS-SC-EXC4.rs.riverstonenet.com) by mil.doit.wisc.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 186Cf3-0000Zh-00 for ipfix-eval@net.doit.wisc.edu; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:22:41 -0600
Received: from riverstonenet.com ([134.141.180.98]) by RS-SC-EXC4.rs.riverstonenet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Mon, 28 Oct 2002 08:22:10 -0800
Message-ID: <3DBD63B8.D1B45A86@riverstonenet.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:20:08 -0500
From: calato@riverstonenet.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD475 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.6 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
CC: Simon Leinen <simon@limmat.switch.ch>, ipfix-eval@net.doit.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: [ipfix-eval] draft-leinen-ipfix-eval-contrib-00.txt
References: <15805.13639.378299.410135@limmat.switch.ch> <3DBD5BEB.5000806@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Oct 2002 16:22:10.0892 (UTC) FILETIME=[2ADE00C0:01C27E9E]
Precedence: bulk
Sender: majordomo listserver <majordomo@mil.doit.wisc.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Benoit Claise wrote: > > Simon, > > >I decided to submit an updated version of my "Individual Evaluation" > >I-D for reference, because it contains some rationale that is missing > >from the first version of the evaluation team I-D. Since I hadn't > >submitted the first version to the I-D repository, I had to change the > >title rather than the serial number. Full text is attached. > > > >Changes from the first version (which had been circulated on the > >ipfix-eval mailing list) include: > > > > Changed name from draft-leinen-ipfix-eval-00.txt to > > draft-leinen-ipfix-eval-contrib-00.txt. > > > > Added text about benefit/cost of split reporting à la LFAP. > > > > Added text about benefits of server-selected byte ordering à la > > CRANE. > > > > Added text about LFAP's multi-record encoding. > > > > Added text about NetFlow v9's periodical reporting requirement for > > option and template data, and how this could be relaxed for > > reporting asynchronous events, in particular when a reliable > > transport is used. > > > > (Opinionated Conclusions): Removed entire section. > > > Why have you removed your conclusions? > After the extensive comparison you've been conducting, I was thinking > this was the most valuable section! I'll second that! > > Regards, Benoit. > > > > > (Acknowledgements): New section. > > > > (References): Completed LFAP-MIB reference. > > > > [deleted..] -- Help mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say "help" in message body Unsubscribe mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say "unsubscribe ipfix" in message body Archive http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/